- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100180 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: CHANDRU S/O. YELLAPPA BENNE @ CHANDRU, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. AKKIALUR, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY HANGAL POLICE STATION, HANGAL, THROUGH S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.60/2021, DATED 22.02.2023, PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.203/2016, DATED 16.11.2021, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT HANGAL, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No.203/2016, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal (for short, ‘the trial Court’), and the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.60/2021 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri (for short, ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that, on 08.08.2015 at about 8:00 a.m., the accused, while driving a Tempo bearing registration No.KA-27/B- 2130 with passengers on board, proceeded from Gejjehalli - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 towards Hangal in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, and lost control over the vehicle. Consequently, the Tempo toppled towards the side of the road, causing grievous injuries to the passengers, and resulting in the death of one of them. 4. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and under Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’). 5. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and marked 35 documents as Exhibits P1 to P35. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are eyewitnesses along with the testimony of other witnesses, including the injured witnesses, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and that the accused had committed the charged offences. Accordingly, the trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for different terms along with imposition of fine. 6. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, preferred Criminal Appeal No.60/2021. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner, submits that the accused was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the condition of the road was poor, and due to the presence of potholes, the accident occurred while attempting to avoid them, and not on account of any rashness or negligence. It is also submitted that the accused had exercised due care while driving. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by examining PWs.2 to 5, who are injured eyewitnesses. The learned AGA submits that, although PW.9-the owner of the vehicle, did not support the case of the prosecution, the testimony of the eyewitnesses clearly established that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that the trial Court and the appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. The occurrence of the accident on 08.08.2015 involving the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/B- 2130 is not in dispute. The death of one of the passengers and the injuries sustained by the other passengers in the said accident are also not seriously disputed. The accused has raised two contentions: firstly, that he has been falsely implicated and was not driving the offending vehicle - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 at the time of the accident and secondly, that the accident occurred due to potholes on the road and not on account of any rash or negligent driving on his part. PW.9-the owner of the vehicle has not supported the case of the prosecution, having stated that he handed over the vehicle to his brother and is unaware to whom his brother further handed over the vehicle. 10.1 PWs.2 to 5, who were travelling in the vehicle and suffered injuries, are injured eyewitnesses. All four witnesses have consistently testified that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The defence has extensively cross-examined all four eyewitnesses, however, nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit or contradict their testimony. The evidence of these eyewitnesses has remained unshaken and inspires confidence. Their consistent and credible testimony establishes that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 11. The next issue for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to potholes on the road, as contended by the accused. Ex.P2-spot photographs depict the condition of the road and the position of the vehicle. A perusal of Ex.P2 reveals that there were no potholes on the road that could have caused the accident, contrary to the defence set up by the accused. Ex.P1-spot mahazar records that the accused was carrying 23 passengers in the vehicle and that the road was an 18-feet-wide tar road. Notably, Ex.P1 does not record the presence of any potholes. Ex.P1 stands corroborated by Ex.P2. Ex.P33-spot sketch also corroborates Exs.P1 and P2, showing that the road is 18 feet wide, free from potholes, and is a straight stretch. 11.1 PWs.2 to 5, the injured eyewitnesses, have consistently deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused at high speed. Though suggestions were made to these witnesses during cross-examination regarding the presence of potholes on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 the road, no affirmative or credible response supporting such a defence was elicited. The further question is whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. PWs.2 to 5 have consistently deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle at high speed, lost control, and thereby caused the accident. Exs.P1 and P2 indicate that the road was in good condition and straight. The oral testimony of the eyewitnesses is in complete corroboration with Exs.P1 and P2. 12. Ex.P4-IMV report issued by PW.6 records the extent of damage caused to the vehicle. PW.6 has opined that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle that could have caused the accident. Exs.P6 to P28-wound certificates establish the nature of injuries sustained by the passengers who were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 13. Ex.P5-post-mortem report proves that the death of Devendrappa Hanumantappa Vaddara was due to cardio-respiratory failure resulting from a head injury. The fact that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident in question is not disputed and stands established through the evidence of the eyewitnesses. 14. The trial Court, upon considering the aforementioned evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Taking into account the degree of negligence exhibited by the accused while driving a vehicle carrying 23 passengers, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused and imposed sentence for the offences charged. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused. 15. This Court has also perused the evidence on record, particularly the evidence relied upon by the trial - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 Court. Upon such perusal and re-assessment, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the accused is guilty of the offences charged. The extensive arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner have not demonstrated any infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. The findings are based on proven and credible evidence on record. Hence, the conviction is upheld. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative, submitted that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2015, and at that time, the accused was aged 24 years. It is submitted that the petitioner is now married, has two children, and is the sole earning member of the family. It is further submitted that imposition of a sentence of imprisonment would cause undue hardship to his dependent family members. 17. The trial Court and the appellate Court, based on the evidence of four eyewitnesses-PWs.2 to 5 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to the other passengers. It is also noted that the accused was driving the offending vehicle carrying 23 passengers. The trial Court, while observing that the gravity of the offences was serious, considered the case of the petitioner with leniency and sentenced him to pay a fine for all the charged offences, except for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, for which he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 18. In the light of the above, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to take a lenient view does not impress this Court. 19. However, the submission that imprisonment of the accused would cause hardship to his family, particularly to his dependent wife and minor children, merits consideration. Though the learned counsel for the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 petitioner was not inclined to make a statement on quantum of fine, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment by directing payment of a fine in lieu of imposition. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C.No.203/2016, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, and the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.60/2021 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri, are hereby confirmed to the extent of conviction. (iii) The sentence of imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9232 CRL.RP No. 100180 of 2023 Section 304-A of IPC is modified with payment of fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order before the trial Court. (v) In default of fine, the revision petitioner- accused shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. (vi) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Devendrappa Hanumantappa Vaddara, electronically on due identification. (vii) Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stand cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12